Toronto’s ‘Global City’ status holds true due to increased social polarization.
July 21, 2010 | 10 Comments
Before I get to the nitty gritty of this piece, I must say that the use of references here is for the sole purpose of solidifying the position I am attempting to argue. Please accept my apologies for the overtly essay-esque style of this piece.
Toronto is Canada’s primary economic engine as well as most populous city. According to GAWC (2005) Toronto is classified as a ‘global city’, which for those who may not know is a term that has been in frequent use since the publication of Saskia Sassen’s (1991) influential book on the subject entitled (rather appropriately) The Global City. Global cities are defined as thus: a city acting as a focus for world finance and trade flows. According to Corbridge, Martin & Thrift (1994) twenty-five cities effectively control almost all the world’s financial transactions, and New York, London, and Tokyo are at the top of the hierarchy; of course things have changed rather dramatically since 1994 and the current literature basically removes Tokyo from the list. Essentially the world’s most influential and powerful global cities exist in a dyad; namely, London and New York. According to Sassen global cities function in four ways, ‘first, as highly concentrated command points in the organization of the world economy; second, as locations for finance and for specialized service firms which have replaced manufacturing as the leading economic sector; third, as sites of production, including production of innovations, in these leading industries; and fourth, as markets for the products and innovations produced’.
According to Walks (2001), ‘Sassen’s thesis concerning the relationship between the increasing global mobility of capital and labour and new forms of occupational stratification within cities has been particularly influential in guiding recent research into the impacts of economic restructuring on urban social inequality’. According to Sassen (1991), social polarization follows from the new employment structure dominated by service industries, and indeed becomes perpetuated by the continuing pursuit of service sector activities.
In the Toronto urban region, a tendency toward increased socio-spatial inequality and polarization has been linked, by some of the literature, to the ongoing economic restructuring suggested by Sassen (Walks, 2001). Moreover, the Toronto region seems to mimic other global cities with a trend toward overall ‘professionalisation’ and a decline in the manufacturing industry. However, ‘labour force bifurcation’ is also evident as these shifts are accompanied by increases in both ‘low-level services employment’ and ‘unemployment’ (ibid). Hamnett (1996) suggests that welfare-state-supported unemployment may be playing a role in reducing the degree of ‘occupational polarization’ that may be evidenced in the Toronto example (ibid). This, according to Walks (2001), may suggest that Toronto ‘may be thought of as a middle-ground between cities in the US, where restructuring is characterized by much low-level services growth, and cities in Europe, where unemployment and/or state-funded underemployment are the more common responses’. This statement is of particular importance since it may highlight some of the results of statewide policy governing urbanization processes with regards to their effect on the global economy, although it does concur with Sassen’s thesis on the whole.
An important finding in the Toronto region was the accompanying of trends regarding the structure and location of immigrant flows and occupation (Walks, 2001). In Toronto, ‘occupation bifurcation’ has been witnessed within actual immigrant groups where a class difference in these groups has begun to emerge (ibid). This has affected the socio-spatial landscape with regards to where these ‘classes’ of immigrants live (ibid). Sassen (1991) argues that global cities ‘should show increasing polarization within their immigrant communities, fuelling and being fueled by occupational bifurcation’. If this is actually the case then it has had a profound impact on the socio-demographic/physical make up of the Toronto region, a region that has an immigrant population of 41% (Wikipedia, 2005). According to Walks (2001), ‘lower class immigrants’ seem to be located within the inner city and mature suburbs whereas ‘higher class immigrants’ seem to be located in the newer suburbs and exurbs. Whether this aspect is a result of the ongoing processes outlined by Sassen or a result of immigration policy favouring the entrance of ‘business’ immigrants as opposed to ‘refugees’ is a question that indeed needs further study. Moreover, according to Kazemipur and Halli (2000) data on immigrants living in Toronto are notoriously difficult to attain as well as somewhat inaccurate.
In accordance with changes to occupation and immigration variables Walks’ (2001) research has revealed a trend towards increasing income inequality and polarization. According to the literature, polarization in household income is witnessed as households increasingly fall into higher and lower income categories. Reverting to census tract data it seems as though the poorest census tracts have seen income fall whereas the richest has seen them rise (ibid). This data has also suggested that income segregation is evident between neighbourhoods (ibid).
Therefore, with regards to Sassen’s thesis regarding increased social polarization in global cities, according to Walks’ (2001) research the thesis holds true. However it is important to note that Walks (2001) acknowledges the fact that ‘the social effects of post-fordist economic restructuring and the interplay between occupational changes and social and spatial factors within urban areas are not well understood’. Therefore the Sassen paradigm may ‘intuitively’ make sense, however is it actually happening or rather, is it the only thing that’s happening?
List of the Top 30 Global Cities in Ranking Order according to the journal Foreign Policy in consultation with Saskia Sassen.
Rank City Best category (position in that category)
1 New York City, Business Activity and Human Capital (1st)
2 London, Cultural Experience (1st)
3 Paris, Information Exchange (1st)
4 Tokyo, Business Activity (2nd)
5 Hong Kong, Business Activity and Human Capital (5th)
6 Los Angeles, Human Capital (4th)
7 Singapore, Business Activity (6th)
8 Chicago, Human Capital (3rd)
9 Seoul, Information Exchange (5th)
10 Toronto, Cultural Experience (4th)
11 Washington, D.C., Political Engagement (1st)
12 Beijing, Political Engagement (7th)
13 Brussels, Information Exchange (2nd)
14 Madrid, Information Exchange (9th)
15 San Francisco, Human Capital (12th)
16 Sydney, Human Capital (8th)
17 Berlin, Cultural Experience (8th)
18 Vienna, Political Engagement (9th)
19 Moscow, Cultural Experience (6th)
20 Shanghai, Business Activity (8th)
21 Frankfurt, Business Activity (11th)
22 Bangkok, Political Engagement (13th)
23 Amsterdam, Business Activity (10th)
24 Stockholm, Information Exchange (13th)
25 Mexico City, Cultural Experience (9th)
26 Zürich, Information Exchange (8th)
27 Dubai, Information Exchange (14th)
28 Istanbul, Political Engagement (8th)
29 Boston, Human Capital (9th)
30 Rome, Cultural Experience (15th)
References:
Corbridge S, Martin R & Thrift N (Eds.) (1997) Money, Power and Space, Oxford: Blackwell
GAWC (Globalization and World Cities). (2005). http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/publicat.html
Hamnett,C. (1996). Social Polarisation in global cities: theory and evidence. Urban Studies, 31: 401-424.
Kazemipur, A., Halli, S.S. (2000). The Colour of Poverty: A study of the poverty of ethnic and immigrant groups in Canada. International Migration, 38(1):69-88.
Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Walks, R.A. (2001). The Social Ecology of the Post-Fordist/Global City? Economic Restructuring and Socio-spatial Polarisation in the Toronto Urban Region. Urban Studies, 38(3): 407-447.
Comments
10 Responses to “Toronto’s ‘Global City’ status holds true due to increased social polarization.”
Leave a Reply
July 22nd, 2010 @ 1:43 am
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!
[Reply]
July 22nd, 2010 @ 1:46 am
[...] official status to the International Lesbian and Gay …Checking Order Status | Cell Call WorldToronto's 'Global City' status holds true due to increased social …Website Status: Login Issues | THE KOP [...]
July 22nd, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Tarek:
This is a very interesting piece.
I would like you to clarify a couple of items, in regards to the research of the referenced sources. I am uncertain if the variables Sassen’s attributes to increased social polarization in global cities can be applied, as a generic formula to identify patterns of stratification.
For example, ‘in accordance with changes to occupation and immigration variables Walks’ (2001) research has revealed a trend towards increasing income inequality and polarization’ does this assumption hold true for Japan or Singapore?
Japan’s levels of immigration are not comparable with Toronto’s, given its homogenous nature; so an elementary analysis can deduce that immigration variables are not the catalyst for the prevalence of social polarization in Japanese society.
Singapore on the other hand contains a large expatriate community, whether the advent of this group has created certain conditions that have led to the formation of social polarity needs to be analyzed further.
The gentrification that has evolved in Toronto does not adequately box immigrants into a ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ class, since many of Toronto’s suburbs contain several pockets of ‘lower income’ housing. This demand has grown to reflect not only a somewhat lower real estate market, but the appeal of living in ethnic ghettos that will ease the process of settlement.
Sassen’s paradigm may be applied to certain Western nations that experience relatively high levels of immigration, but its issuance towards a blanket examination of Global Cities should be re-evaluated.
[Reply]
Tarek Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Adnan,
You are absolutely correct in saying that Sassen’s thesis needs further scrutiny as to its application in Asian (and other)global cities. The thing is the work is ongoing, and your question is one of the aspects being tackled. There is a newer literature that attempts to reconfigure the global cities literature towards changes in globalization patterns. There is also other works that attempt to address the notion of shifting global cities/poles with regards to financial growth in the east, post credit crunch.
As for the notion of immgration, again, you’re right regarding places such as Japan and Singapore. Obviously furtehr research is needed to tackle your questions succinctly.
[Reply]
July 22nd, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Hi Tarek
I really enjoyed this piece. I think this issue is only gaining relevance as demographic shifts are now such that for the first time in history, a majority of the world’s population now live in cities.
http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm
I’d be interested to hear what you think in terms of specific policy implications for Canada. How should government tackle income disparity and social polarization, if indeed this is occurring?
[Reply]
Tarek Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Hi Kate,
I think there are two schools of thought regarding social polarization in the global cities literature. The first basically states that this is a natural occurence that is a result of occupation bifurcation, which in time changes. The other way of thinking about it revolves around the role of the welfare state in subsidising income disparity. Personally, I think one of the most pressing issues regarding policy vis a vis immigration and income disparity revolves around the Canadian immigration system and its policies regarding overseas qualifications and retraining. I think cab drivers that hold a PhD ( even if its from say the University of Lagos, Nigeria) is a travesty. That entire school of thinking needs to be re-examined in my humble opinion. Glad you liked the piece.
[Reply]
July 22nd, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
Okay, but as a Canadian who doesn’t live in Toronto, I’m still allowed to hate the place, right?
[Reply]
North Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Jonathan, hating Toronto (or for Torontonians hating non-Torontonians) is one of our inaliable rights as Canadian citizens. It’s in the charter. Look it up.
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Excellent! It’s my understanding that this right is even extended to babies, rabbis and lesbians!
[Reply]
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:49 am
Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article
[Reply]